Oaths

Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God.

1. THOU shalt swear by the name of the Lord thy God,1 and of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit of God, and by nothing less: neither by the heavens, for God’s throne is there; nor by the hosts thereof, for they serve him; nor by the earth, for it is the place of the sole of his foot; nor by the inhabitants thereof, for they are mortal, and vanity; nor by thyself, for thou art of a day, and shalt cease; nor by any work of man, for it perisheth.2 93 words,343 letters.

1. It is imagined by some that Christ abolished the oath, in saying, “Swear not at all.” (Matt. v, 34.) There is a slight errour in the translation of his words into English, but not enough to conceal the true intent, to wit: that they should not swear by the less, but only by the greater. (id. 35, 36.)2. Of the legality of oaths, under the dispensation of Christ, an eminent example is found in the Angel, who “swear by him that liveth forever, that there should be time no longer.” (Rev. x, 6.)3. And in the dispensation of the final gathering and holiness of Israel, God will exact of all men to swear by his name.

(Isa. lxv, 16. Jer. xii, 16.) In the very discourse in which it has been supposed that oaths were abolished, Jesus said, “Think not I am come to destroy the Law.” (Matt. v, 17.) Yet that was the Law which required these oaths.2. Remember that the Lord thy God swore by himself, because there was none greater:1 but by the greater shalt thou swear, even by God Almighty, and by him whom he sitteth at his right hand forever; and whose is the Kingdom under the whole heaven. Thou shalt not swear by the name of any other God.2 56 words,231 letters.

3. Thou shalt not profane the name of the Lord thy God, nor of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor of the Holy Spirit of God, by any oath:3 but such oaths only as the Law of the Lord thy God, and the command of the King requireth of thee and alloweth, shalt thou take upon thee; for all else is profane. Thou shalt not profane the name of God by any oath or vow, of thine own. 76 words,278 letters.1. It is profaning, the name of God to swear vain oaths, such as are not appointed in the Law, or are not necessary to justice. The oath was appointed of God for great occasions, and not to be made a light thing of by familiar use.2. In the conversations and communications of men, let your communication be yes, and no; for he that is not worthy of credit in these, is more to be suspected of falsehood

when he swears. Profanity will not prevent falsehood.3. Nor should Judges and Rulers, and those set in authority exact an oath in all cases of controversy among men. The habit of always swearing a witness in all cases of litigation about little trifles, tends to destroy the sacredness of the oath, by making it too common, and encourages perjury.4. Be not too ready, after asserting anything with ever so much sincerity, to swear to it. Men are sometimes mistaken, when very sure. A word should be spoken on oath only with much deliberation and thoughtfulness. Otherwise it ceases to be the end of controversy. Great readiness to swear without due deliberation, would reduce the oath of the swearer to another man’s yes, and no, or below it.5. The practice of swearing by the name of God, or of any holy person, or of any false god, or of any man, or place, or thing, or by any name, word, or place whatever, in our conversations, or in anger, is to be reprehended, and punished as a gross violation of this Law.6. And all those modes of speaking which approach to, and resemble profane swearing, should be avoided; and if any one, after admonition, persists in them, he should be punished.

4. An oath shall be before the King, and the Judge, and the Ruler, and the Minister of the Law; and before such as are set in authority, whensoever they require it:1 and there may be an oath also between those who enter into covenant:2 and also between him that serveth, and him that ordereth.3 54 words,226 letters.

1. It is the duty of a judge to use the most careful discretion, in requiring an oath of a party or witness before him. If a witness is under reasonable suspicion of willful falsehood, an oath will seldom relieve it. If he is not corrupt, the truth can generally be got out of him without it.2. The principal use of the oath, is to bind one for an act long in the future; and to be of any value for that purpose it should only be resorted to on great occasions, and with much deliberation.3. In covenants between parties, it is proper only in cases where, from some reason, the Law would scarcely afford a remedy for the breach of the covenant, or there is no sufficient authority to enforce it.4. So between a Prince, or Ruler, or Master and his servants; it is right to take an oath of a Steward, for the substance of another is in his hand, and no one knows what he does with it. And if a promise be made to a servant, by a great man, of some great favour, he may confirm it with an oath.

5. Thou shalt perform all thine oaths; whether unto God or unto man, thou shalt perform them. Thou shalt do according to every word that proceedeth out of thy mouth.1 Thou shalt not speak with thy lips when thy heart giveth not assent, to do and to perform all the words of thy mouth.2

53 words,222 letters.

6. If thou swear by an oath to do anything which is known to thee, and it be sin, it is not an oath of the Lord thy God. Thou

canst not profane the name of the holy, to sanctify sin. God shall judge thee, and him that asketh it of thee. Ye shall bear your sins together.57 words,203 letters.

7. But if thou swear by an oath to do a thing, and it be hid from thee, and thou know it not, and when it is known to thee it is sin; thou shalt submit thyself unto the judgment of God, and shalt do penance; and shalt make restitution, as shall be put upon thee; that all sin may be put away, and thy heart purified, and wickedness put out of the land.1 73 words, 266 letters.

1. There is, perhaps, no more difficult question in moral philosophy than that arising out of this class of oaths. The discussion of it for near three centuries, has failed of any satisfactory result.2. One of the chief accusations of the Protestants against the Roman Catholicks was, that the Romish Priests, or some of the higher of them, exercised the prerogative of absolving Christians from their oaths.3. This question had most consequence during the political struggles between Protestants and Romanists in Europe, which coutinued for three centuries, and during which the Pope not unfrequently absolved nations from their oaths of allegiance to Protestant Princes.4. The same power had frequently before been exercised against Princes, who were not sufficiently subservient to the Pope, though of the Roman Catholick religion. Indeed, it is not improbable that the dread of that power, more than

[1 Lev. v, 4-13.

[Page 92]

anything else, induced several Princes to encourage the reformation.5. So terrible had this power become in the hands of the Popes, that by means of absolution* and interdict** the Pope, by a simple writing from the Vatican, could drag a powerful Potentate down from his throne, and the meanest of his subjects would refuse him homage. Not unfrequently by the exercise of these prerogatives, renowned Princes had been brought on their knees before the Pope, to kiss his feet, and beg restoration to favour.6. Protestants maintained that such acts by Popes, Bishops, or Priests, were a mere license to commit perjury, and that the oaths of allegiance were, nevertheless, binding, and no power on earth could absolve the subject from his oath of allegiance to his Prince.7. But in the progress of the reformation it not unfrequently happened that Protestants found themselves bound by oath of allegiance to Princes of the Roman Catholick religion; Princes whom they deemed it their duty to God, to oppose in arms.8. They did not stand upon the obligations of the oath. The better sort of men, perhaps, in some way, persuaded themselves that the oath was not pleasing to God, and on the whole ought not to be kept, and so took to themselves a dispensation to violate it.9. Taking example from them, worse men assume to disregard any oath they wish to be rid of, as often as they can do so without fear of punishment.

*Absolution extended not only to pardon of sins, but to releasing from oaths, obligations, or allegiance.** By the Pope’s inderdict publick worship ceases, the churches are closed, the sacraments cannot be administered, nor the dead buried. There can be neither marriage nor baptism, or any religious act, till the interdict is withdrawn.

[Page 93]

10. If it was dangerous to trust the dispensation of oaths, under circumstances when the propriety of keeping them was exceedingly doubtful, to the leaders, instructors, and pastors of the people, how much more dangerous to trust the same powers to the mass of the people, with all their temptations, to depart from obligations, voluntarily assumed, but which they no longer wished to keep.11. This was the opening of a floodgate of crime, which Protestants have never been able to close. And a horrible comment it is on their affected indignation at the Roman Catholick Priests, for dispensing the obligations of an oath.12. In the English and German revolutions of the last three centuries, as well as in the American revolution, whole nations of Protestants trampled on their oaths of allegiance, and sundered them as ropes of sand. Indeed; latterly, revolutions seem to have been entered on just as lightly, and upon just as small causes as though subjects were not bound by an oath.13. If the mischief ended here, there would be hope for those nations which dispense with the administration of the oath of allegiance. But the doctrine once set on foot that a man may simply throw off the obligation of an oath, because he thinks it ought not to have been taken, has almost destroy-ed the force of all oaths.14. The practice of the Protestants is grossly contrary to the Bible, as they read it. In the ambiguous statement of the Law, (Lev. v, 4,) whatever else may be in the dark, it appears that “if a soul swear to do good, or to do evil, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth it, he shall be guilty.” That is, if, in the result, the oath unexpectedly requires a sinful act, he shall be guilty, whether he keeps or breaks it.15. Further, the Law is not clearly set out; but it requires

[Page 94]

him to confess, and to make a trespassoffering, and the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.16. This much is, therefore, clear; that a man cannot, of right, put off and break such an oath; and that those who are unfortunately involved in it, must submit themselves to the Priesthood of God.17. An eminent case in point is that of Jephthah, Judge of Israel, who, when he went out to battle against the Ammonites, vowed unto the Lord that if he would deliver them into his hands, he would make a burnt offering of whatsoever first met him, as he returned home in peace.18. He did not know what would first meet him. Therefore, what the oath required, was unknown. He won a great victory; but as he returned home his daughter, his only child, met him. Yet Jephthah dared not to break his vow.* (Jud. xi, 30-37.)19. A still stronger case is that of the Gibeonites, (Josh. ix,) who by lies and false pretences obtain a covenant of the Princes of Israel to let them live.20. The Law of God forbade Israel to make any league or covenant with the people of the country; and by the deep guille of the Gibeonites they were induced to violate this Law. Yet God held them and their children bound by the oath, throughout all generations.21. For when, Saul, King of Israel, slew some of the Gibeonites, in violation of that oath, God punished Israel, at whose instance he did it, with three years famine, until the posterity

*Jephthah’s daughter was not slain and burnt. As she was not a lawful sacrifice, she was valued by the Priest according to the Law, (Lev. xxvii, 1-7,) and a sacrifice made instead. But as she was devoted, she could not be redeemed; (Lev. xxvii, 28-33;) therefore she was given to the service of the Tabernacle as a Nazarite all her life. For this reason it is not said that she or her companions lamented or bewalled her death, but her virginity. (Jud. xi, 37-40.) She could not be given in marriage; a very great misfortune in Israel; and this is what she and her companions bewailed.

[Page 95]

of Saul were given up to be destroyed; the most conclusive evidence that in the judgment of God the oath was binding on the nation, though the taking it was sinful.22. Had the Gibeonites and the Princes of Israel both understood that the oath was unlawful, and unlawfully obtained it seems that it would have been void.23. But it would be wrong that the Princes should excuse the breach of an oath, made in favour of strangers, by saying it was contrary to the Law of Israel, which the stranger might be quite ignorant of.24. Nor could they excuse themselves because the Gibeonites had deceived them, for that would present a temptation to all men, after receiving the benefit of a covenant, to seek some pretence for casting off the obligation. Deliberation should go before the oath; but, as far as possible, that should be the end of strife.25. These cases and Commandments make a strong rule against the doctrine and practice of Protestants. Still the rule of the Romanists is inadmissible. For it is not to be endured that there should be any power within the State which can step between sovereign and subject, and absolve one from his obligation to the other.26. Among a people who truly believe their religion, and will not profane their oaths, such a rule would at once transfer the real sovereignty to the Priests, to whom the power of absolution belonged.27. If the Priest may absolve a citizen, and give him a dispensation to violate any oath, which, as citizen or subject he is bound by, the State has lost its power over him, and can bind him by no obligation; it depends on the Priest alone.28. If he may absolve the Prince, the subject can have no

[Page 96]

guaranty that what the Prince has sworn to at his coronation, he will perform in his reign. The Priest, in becoming the conscience keeper, becomes the common ruler of Prince and people.29. This was doubtless the intention of the Law of Moses. Under that Law, officers of the Church were all officers of the State; for State and Church were one institution. And the delicate question of the obligation of oaths, not proper of themselves, but when the impropriety was unintended, was reserved to the men raised up of God as leaders and pastors of the people.

8. If thy wife swear by an oath to perform anything which thou mayest disallow, and thou hold thy peace at her, the day that thou hearest it, her oath shall stand. If thou wilt not that she perform it, thou shalt disallow it presently; for if thou delay, and then disallow it, thou shalt answer for her oath, and shalt bear her iniquity.1 63 words,262 letters.

9. If thy son, or thy daughter, swear by an oath to perform anything which thou mayest disallow, and thou hold thy peace to thy child the day that thou hearest it, the oath shall stand.2 If thou wilt not that the oath stand, thou shalt disallow it presently; for if thou delay, and then disallow it, thou shalt answer for the oath, and shalt bear the iniquity of thy child. 70 words,289 letters.

[1 Num. xxx, 6-15. [2 Num. xxx, 3-5.

[Page 97]

10. And if thy servant swear by an oath to do a thing which thou mayest disallow, and thou hold thy peace at him, the day that thou hearest it, his oath shall stand. If thou wilt not that his oath stand, thou shalt disallow it presently; for if thou delay, and then disallow it, thou shalt answer for the oath, and shalt bear the iniquity of thy servant.68 words,273 letters.Total—10 Sec., 663 words, 2,593 letters.

1. Wives, children and servants, being subject to an authority which may control their actions, cannot always perform what they may have sworn. Hence, the husband, the father, or the master, is made liable for all the consequences, if permitting them to take the oath, he will not allow them to perform it.2. But some oaths he cannot disallow. If a higher authority interposes rightfully, they must yield to it, and that authority will shield them, and will be their avenger.3. Those who are thus subject to the control of another, ought to be very careful not to incur any obligation which they may not be allowed to perform, without permission so to do, except upon very grave cause.4. It is their duty, also, after incurring the obligation, to seek diligently to perform it. Though the husband, father, or master may interpose to prevent the keeping of the oath, they cannot appeal to him to shield them from their voluntary obligations. On the other hand, they are bound to seek his permission, to do what they have sworn. For so sacred is the obligation of an oath, that to seek a pretence for drawing back from it, is a violation of its intent and purpose.